SCOTUS Denies Chance to Review Expansion of Section 232 Duties Onto 'Derivative' Products

The U.S. Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari in a case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products. PrimeSource argued that the president's decision to extend the duties onto these goods was unlawful since it was made beyond procedural time limits laid out in the statute (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed with PrimeSource, finding the president can violate these time constraints so long as the duties adhere to the original plan of action as contemplated by the commerce secretary in its report to the president undergirding the duties (see 2302070030). The court had previously relied on the same logic in Transpacific v. U.S., where Trump raised Section 232 duties only on steel goods from Turkey, instead of expanding them onto new products, as was the case in the current suit.

PrimeSource emphasized that difference in an attempt to distinguish the facts underpinning its case from Transpacific, which the high court had already denied the chance to review (see 2203280025). In its bid to get the Supreme Court to hear its case, PrimeSource additionally argued that the case would allow the court to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive branch (see 2310110061).

The importer also implicated the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in West Virgina v. EPA, which championed the "major questions" doctrine. Under the doctrine, the executive is barred from taking policy action on areas with major implications for the economy unless the power to take such action is explicitly delegated by Congress. PrimeSource argued that Section 232 duties had a major effect on the economy.